Undocumented Immigrants Make America Safer

Don't believe the falsehoods peddled by Trump and Sessions.

From the beginning of his campaign for president, Donald Trump portrayed illegal immigration as a forest fire that threatens to spread rapidly and engulf us all. Mexicans, he charged, are "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." He thought Americans should be afraid.

He's still blaring that message. Last month, he tweeted angrily that a "caravan" of Hondurans was marching northward through Mexico to pour across the Rio Grande. "Getting more dangerous," he warned.

In San Diego on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions echoed the alarm. Raising the specter that we could be "overwhelmed" by a "stampede" of invaders, he vowed to "finally secure this border so that we can get the American people the safety and peace of mind that they deserve."

When these two are done in Washington, they can go into the business of making horror movies—which, like these claims, are not rooted in reality. The Honduran "caravan" is more scared than scary, consisting of a bedraggled, footsore group of unfortunates who fled violence and poverty in the hope of gaining asylum in the United States.

Irineo Mujica, who works for an advocacy group that is helping them, told The New York Times: "There are 300 kids and 400 women. Babies with bibs and milk bottles, not armaments. How much of a threat can they be?" Besides, they don't have to stampede over the border. They are legally allowed to arrive at immigration checkpoints and apply for sanctuary.

But for Trump and Sessions, anyone who comes here without a visa evokes fear and hatred. The president and his attorney general ignore the real dangers posed by most undocumented foreigners: They will fill jobs that Americans don't want, learn English, pay taxes, and stay out of trouble. Chilling, huh?

The president relishes lurid tales of the criminal gang MS-13. Last year, he said, "They stomp on their victims. They beat them with clubs. They slash them with machetes, and they stab them with knives. They have transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields."

No one disputes that MS-13 is a violent gang, but it's just one of many that plague American cities. All that distinguishes this one is that many of its members came from Central America, some without documents—allowing Trump to blame its villainy on illegal immigration. He thinks undocumented immigrants are criminals by definition and therefore a hellish danger.

But he's railing against a threat that exists largely in his mind. Trump failed to notice that the big wave of unauthorized immigration that came in the 1990s coincided with a plunge in crime and violence.

In 1990, there were about 3.5 million undocumented foreigners in this country, and the national murder rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people. When the undocumented population peaked at 12.2 million in 2007, the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000—a decline of 40 percent—and it has fallen more since then.

Far from generating crime, this group appears to suppress it. A groundbreaking new state-by-state study covering 1990 to 2014 by sociologists Michael Light of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ty Miller of Purdue in the journal Criminology concludes that "undocumented immigration over this period is generally associated with decreasing violence."

In another study, Light, Miller, and Brian Kelly (also of Purdue) found that "increased undocumented immigration was significantly associated with reductions in drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests."

The question Light and his colleagues examined, he told me, is: "Does undocumented immigration make us less safe?" The answer: "No." If anything, he says, the evidence "suggests the opposite."

Policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute examined the evidence on crime from Texas. He found that unauthorized foreigners were about half as likely as native-born Americans to be convicted of a crime and one-quarter less likely to be convicted of murder. Their overall arrest rate was 40 percent below that of people born in this country.

What this all shows is that Trump and Sessions are peddling myths. Central American refugees are not about to mount a mass assault on the border. And on the whole, far from posing a danger to public safety, the presence of undocumented foreigners enhances public safety. MS-13 is as representative of them as John Wayne Gacy is of Illinoisans.

This alleged menace is much like the monsters that small children fear. It's scary until you turn on the light and look under the bed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour…

Nothing more arbitrary than a non-American crossing a national boundary that has been in place for more than 150+ years which the residents of that nation deemed illegal and had their legislature enact said immigration laws.

I will add /s since you might think that I support your arbitrary opposition to said immigration laws.

And more residents deemed it no big deal, and other representatives talk amnesty. I’m guessing those are the wrong sorts who are wrong though, so we can pay them no mind for the purposes of science or this discussion.

The law is just something written down by a politician. We enjoy it when politicians write down things we like and forget about “me today; you tomorrow”, except handing power over lives to politicians doesn’t seem to end any other way.

Personally, here in Texas, we actually remember the Alamo (well, some of us) which isn’t to say that we hate Mexico but rather we still teach what being under the Mexican flag was like.

A lot of men and women died to create the border with Mexico, but no I’m sure borders don’t exist for reasons. Sheesh.

Make the case for why we need so many day laborers, please. So far I haven’t heard many good ones, and it seems Reason authors want to pretend that it’s only surgeons and nuclear physicists that are crossing the border. That, and some of them genuinely seem to believe that illegal immigrants in particular are genetically or morally superior to any other group. An odd claim to make, to be sure.

Honest question, if all the people crossing the southern border were Iranians and Hezbollah would they still feel the same way about national borders? Not to imply that our current crop of illegal immigrants are terrorists or anything, they’re definitely not, but I wonder if they would be intellectually consistent on this issue.

I suspect they would not.

By all means have a discussion about where the line should be drawn on who comes to the U.S., but saying ‘there is no line’ is…not going to go over with literally anyone on the centrist right or the centrist left for different reasons. The extremist minority of both sides will have…different and frankly insane opinions on the subject.

Those in favor of the illegal invasion would be fine if they were Iranians and Hezbollah, because then the demise of the United States, which is what they desire, would happen faster. The open-borders/amnesty crowd hate America and want to see a rapid change. It is as simple as that.

But while they’re on the books they need to be obeyed even by those that disagree with them. The way to overturn laws you don’t like is at the ballot box or in court — not in some human trafficker’s panel van.

Every illegal that crosses the US border illegally is violating US law. In other words, 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.

There’s now no question that your comment name is meant as sarcasm as you show the same compulsion for criminalizing the most innocuous of behaviors as quickly as a Soviet bureaucracy in a roll.

A crime, here in the real world of honest adults, is an act of aggression against an individual or his/her property. Not having the required transit papers from Leviathan is a made-up crime, a phony crime, like it was a “crime” at one time for whites to lay with blacks.

I am an American, and I do not agree. Here’s the deal: You get to have an opinion on that, and yet you don’t get to decide mine. You can say and even insist that I do, and I’ll just keep on not doing it.

Luckily, there are a majority of Americans like me who do want to limit illegals.

Great thing about a Constitutional Democratic Republic, is that the Constitution gives the power to regulate immigration and naturalization to government and my silent majority has voted for that power to be enacted.

Or just revise what the Constitution actually says on the matter in your head? Much like an “activist judge”?

Nobody is talking about making these people naturalized citizens. That’s what naturalization means. Naturalization doesn’t mean walking across a line.

Your weak premise that the fed gov has the power to determine who can cross an imaginary line has already been debunked multiple times.

So which is it, are you simply a statist who wants to give power to the federal govt over people regardless of what their Constitutional powers allow, or are you a believer in a living document model for the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8 defines enumerated powers. Congress has the power over Naturalization.Naturalization – Naturalization is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country.

Article 1, Section 9 defines limits on the powers of Congress. This includes the limit on the slave trade, A1S1C1. Of course, I should point out the irony in your position that a clause which defines the slave trade is being invoked as defending your statist position that the Fed Gov should have power over the free movement of peoples.

Section 9 sure does limit Congress’ power to regulate importation of slaves and migration of free persons until 1808.

After that year, states transferred power to regulate slavery and migration to Congress.

Oh no! I am discussing slavery which was listed in the US Constitution because it was LEGAL until 1865. Your little SJW tactic of trying to intimidate people from discussing issues of history and law because America used slaves until 1865, is as bad as your arguments for open borders.

Not making any comment on the US and legality of slavery. I’m merely pointing out that you would be willing to have the Government lord over personal liberty (free movement of peoples) and that you think this power comes from a clause that actually limited Congress’ ability to regulate the slave trade.

If it was not clear from my numerous posts here, I want a balance of maximum Liberty and limited government.

I do NOT want government to “lord” over personal liberty. I also don’t want anarchy.

This is why I am a Libertarian.

That Clause limited federal power to regulate migrants and slaves until 1808. After that year, Congress could regulate slaves and migrants. Slavery was outlawed in 1865, so only regulation of immigrants applies today.

“That Clause limited federal power to regulate migrants and slaves until 1808. After that year, Congress could regulate slaves and migrants. Slavery was outlawed in 1865, so only regulation of immigrants applies today.”

You’re both missing the point, in that the Progressives have installed a vast Rube Goldberg machine into American society that puts a huge onus on employers and employees both that is specifically and explicitly to put illegal immigrants (or migrants, whatever you want to call them) out of work.

Our entire labor system top to bottom is literally there to keep these people from working, and you’ll note no one at all is suggesting any changes to that. So…what is your fucking point? That people should be allowed to the cross the border only to be faced with no possible legal work? Gee, that sounds like a great idea!

Both sides of the immigration debate apparently have zero idea that they’re talking about the wrong thing entirely. The minor fact that this same system has the bonus of pricing legal low-skill labor out of the market entirely seems lost on a lot of people.

Incidentally, there is no line in the constitution that delegates any power whatsoever regarding immigration to the Federal government.

Since the commerce clause prohibits the power to restrict the flow of people between states by the states, that means that the power to make decisions about immigration lies where it should: With free people making decisions about what to do with their own property and in their own lives.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

That gives Congress the authority to regulate migrants (immigrants) after 1808.

That is just untrue. Section 8 Clause 3 gives the Congress the exclusive power to establish uniform rules of Naturalization. Congress also has complete power over foreign trade and power over war and foreign relations. You put that altogether and Congress clearly has the power to determine who can enter the country and remove foreign nationals. If it did not, its powers over foreign commerce would be a dead letter. You can’t control foreign trade without controlling who can enter the country to trade. Its foreign policy and war powers would also be a dead letter. It is long established law and was at the time of the founding that nations had the power to detain and remove foreign aliens of countries at which they were at war. Under your reading of the Constitution, Congress could not do that, only the states could. The ability to prevent aliens from entering its borders has been an inherent power of government since Westphalia. It was recognized at the time of the founding and the founders knew it. The reason why they didn’t put an immigration clause into Article I was because it never occured to the Founders that anyone would be dumb enough to think that a national government that was given the power over war, foreign, trade, citizenship, and foreign affairs did not also have the power to control who entered its borders or to remove foreign aliens who did so when the national interests required it.

“You can’t control foreign trade without controlling who can enter the country to trade.” That’s BS. You think that a farmer hiring a non-citizen worker, or a private store allowing a non-citizen to shop there is within the purview of the Fed Gov because it constitutes foreign trade? Remind me who is the party of big government again? Who is the party that supports a “living” Constitution again?

You are wrong about that. It was a state issue because the feds had not asserted itself. There was no need to do so. The moment the feds did, the courts ruled it had the exclusive power. Just because the feds chose not to exercise its power doesn’t mean the power doesn’t exist. Hell, the Feds could make it a state issue today if they wanted to. The point is that they do not have to.

I would also point out that giving states the power over immigration when combined with the prohibition of states controlling interstate travel and commerce would effectively mean completely open borders and no control over immigration by anyone. It does no good for one state to prohibit immigration when other states can allow it and the states which don’t can’t prohibit the immigration from traveling to their states once they enter the country.

Saying Congress has no power to control or prohibit immigration is effectively saying the founders gave away the country’s sovereign rights when they drafted the Constitution. And that is idiotic. And it is something that no reasonable person would believe for any reason other than a fanatical commitment to absolute open borders. It is just a stupid fucking argument.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that the Founders added to prevent inter-state problems. States fighting over import and export taxes between states and who gets to enter and leave would create a mess and burden trade between states.

As you say John, some of these things were given to the federal government to manage for good reason.

Why Sweden doesn’t keep stats on ethnicity and crime “In 1991 when the centre-right government decided it wanted to get rid of Statistics Sweden (SCB) ? which was seen as an expression of social democracy ? they moved the responsibility for statistics to different bodies, which meant crime statistics were moved to the National Council on Crime Prevention (Br?). At that point the stats we spoke about earlier disappeared.”

Hey, Statist, when you start calling unlicensed drivers “illegal drivers” and people who shack up together without marrying “illegal married couples”, come back and talk about semantics. A person can’t be illegal. Laws regulate ACTIONS, not persons.

All territory that consists of the United State of America is sovereign property of the federal government. The states gave up the absolute power to control their territory when the Constitution was ratified.

Luckily, the federal government is a government of the People for the People, so all Americans control the federal and state governments.

Americans in a majority have duly elected our representatives to control immigration on our behalf.

“Corporations” don’t have property rights. People have property rights. “Cooperatives” don’t have property rights. People have property rights. “Communes” don’t have property rights. People have property rights. “Property” doesn’t have property rights. People have property rights.

It’s a Constitutionally-mandated Federal Republic and not even the most batshit crazy of open borders batshit crazies supports/represents anything near what you’re suggesting. If you don’t like it, GTFO. Good luck finding an imaginary safe space that inherently defends your moronic ideology without existing.

The USA does. Each state has property rights and gave some of that power to the federal government to administer all territory that forms the United States.

US Constitution, preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also Article IV.

I guess they just want to defend words on paper not territory and a free way of life.

sarcasmic|5.10.18 @ 9:55AM|# I never said what my stance is on immigration. And no I’m not an anarchist. I accept that there will always be a gang of men with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal. I’m a minarchist.

It doesn’t, of course. Mr. Social Contract needs to read Spooner. He needs to understand that contracts require the free consent of all parties. Etc. But he’s delighted to be a slaver, which requires that he ignore, and generally debase, the meanings of the concepts he tosses around.

Minarchists still believe in statism, just minimal statism. It’s not an anarchist philosophy. You can look that shit up on Wikipedia if you don’t trust his link (and I don’t trust shortened links at work, either.)

I never said what my stance is on immigration. And no I’m not an anarchist. I accept that there will always be a gang of men with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal. I’m a minarchist.

Anarchy means “no archon.” It doesn’t mean no rules. It means no ruler. No one enforcing the rules with violence. Believe it or not rules can exist without violence. However I’m not an anarchist. Like I said above, I accept that it is not possible. There will always be people like you who will band together and use violence to impose your will upon otherwise peaceful people.

Fine then. I guess all conversation between us is done. You obviously know me better than myself. No point in talking if you’re going to contradict what I say about myself.

While we’re at it, you must be a Nazi because you want armed agents of the state to quiz everyone for their papers, and use violence upon anyone who can’t show that they have proper permission. You must hate Jews too.

No you don’t. You hate Jews. Just Jews. You want to kill them all because they control the banking system and run the shadow government. Only you know the truth. That they’re really lizard people. That show V in the 80s was a documentary. It’s true. They’re stealing our water and harvesting people for food.

You know, it IS possible to disagree with laws and advocate changing them while STILL not violating them while they are in effect.

For instance, I think that laws preventing me from owning an automatic firearm are unconstitutional and wrong, but I have made no effort to try to purchase one because I’d rather not face the penalties that accrue with violating the law.

Seeking a rule-of-law common ground is not at all the same thing as saying “all laws are good laws”.

The alternative is everyone gets to do whatever they want for any reason.

Your argument is that bureaucrats, cops, you know, the DNC and Hillary, Mueller… all abide by the law conspicuously. I’m just checking that you really want to commit to this.

I mean, I can see how you would like this to be the situation. I just can’t see how this IS the situation. People already do whatever they want for any reason. The rule of law is a myth – a nice story, and yet just a story.

If you don’t like something, a law, a statute, the Founders saw fit, in the Constitution, to provide a way whereby that thing might be changed.

Want the borders opened? There’s a way to do that! There’s even a way to make guns illegal!

Problem is, if you wanna change things for everybody, them you need most everybody’s support.

And you all don’t really have that. So you’ve gotta pretend that he’s in the wrong.

But he’s not.

Borders aren’t imaginary lines–they’re property lines. Just as valid as the property lines around your property. It doesn’t stop being private property if it has multiple owners, does it?

Well then.

And then there’s the other thing. You didn’t come in to this game at the start. You joined while it was going. You got to customize your character, but someone else set the base parameters. There are ways to alter them(see above) but you don’t just get to act as if the game has to restart every time a new character spawns.

They know that changing the Constitution is relatively impossible for them.

Any amendment banning guns would be blasted and would never get ratified by 3/4 of the states. Then all gun control would be laughed out of existence. It would also show that even gun grabbers know that they need a constitutional amendment to have gun control.

They chose to go the incrementalism route which has been more successful in the past.

Only if they committed an actual CRIME, otherwise you would have to show consistency and say that drivers who do not have a valid driver’s license are Criminal Drivers or that homosexuals who shacked up together during the very recent good ol days of Sodomy Laws were Criminal Fornicators.

If that’s the problem, then push to reform the welfare laws. Restricting individual freedom to solve a spending problem (if that’s truly the motivation) doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

If you think that the opinions of the majority of Americans are greater than the natural rights of individuals, then I guess I’ll never win this argument with you.

But there is no natural right to free movement. Nearly every living thing, plant, animal, virus that we have ever encountered attacks individuals that cross into or try to enter or take their territory.

And that is where the natural right lies– you have the natural right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your and their property.

You do not have a natural right to the property of others. Whether it be their bodies, their loved ones, their worldly goods or their territory.

Yes, that is an essential part of the problem. Running a welfare state with open borders seems like a losing proposition. At the very least, it violates biases about generousity within the in-group. And it looks economically unsustainable.

No they are hoping to gain Welfare payments in the United States. Under treaty law they must be allowed to receive all Welfare payments available

That is why they did not ask for asylum in Mexico who don’t give such large payments.

But Reason does not care since they are a non-profit and don’t pay for welfare.

It was brought up that asylum seekers under international law can’t seek asylum anyplace but the first safe country. It was correctly pointed out that this was untrue. Conveniently skipped over in the narrative is that no haven is required to actually house them internally. That is, if Hondurans flee to Mexico and on to the US and the US decides to ship them back to Mexico (or even Honduras at a later date) it’s not just well within the conventions and law to do so, the conventions and law are written as such. This is how Australia housed the refugees on Manus Island and shipped them off to the US. By law, Australia owes (owed) precisely dick to the refugees on Manus Island.

Anybody willing to risk their lives crossing hostile terrain with little more than the clothes on their back in order to get to a foreign country where they don’t speak the language and they’re widely hated, just for the opportunity to get a shitty job is already an American in my book. What the fuck risks have you ever taken to deserve your place at the table? You’re here because you hit the lottery when your daddy knocked up your momma, and now you’re going to talk shit about the people who are willing to bust their ass trying to earn just a little of what fell into your lap? You’re talking shit about people who have the guts and the drive and the determination to better themselves, demonstrate the gumption your immigrant ancestors possessed but is so sorely lacking in your fat lazy dumb ass, and you’re proud of that? Pathetic.

Anybody willing to risk their lives crossing hostile terrain with little more than the clothes on their back in order to get to a foreign country where they don’t speak the language and they’re widely hated, just for the opportunity to get a shitty job is already an American in my book.

Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter.

But if instead the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

About 1M such good people successfully use the pathways to citizenship that the US’s charity and goodwill provides each and every year.

But anyone who just jumps a border or overstays a temporary visa has chosen from day one to give the middle finger to the laws of the US is no better than breaking into my house.

Okay that’s fine, but if they’re that hard working they can’t have government assistance of any kind, they can’t show up at an emergency room for a head cold, and if they break any laws which apply to current citizens, they get deported.

Anybody willing to risk their lives crossing hostile terrain with little more than the clothes on their back in order to get to a foreign country where they don’t speak the language and they’re widely hated, just for the opportunity to get a shitty job is already an American in my book.

Okay, but that doesn’t describe all of these people. And they are hardly, ‘widely hated’. Go find me any instances of hate crimes against illegal aliens. They are welcomed with open arms, given access to welfare, public schools for their kids, and a variety of other public services that are undreamed of in their home countries.

You’re here because you hit the lottery when your daddy knocked up your momma, and now you’re going to talk shit about the people who are willing to bust their ass trying to earn just a little of what fell into your lap?

I don’t normally disagree with you, but this statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of biology and statistics.

Of course this based on Chapman’s support for the socialist idea that public property is public to the world with his open borders idea After all, how do people enter into a country freely when they have no ownership at all in the property ?

Public property is property the state has decided it has the right to manage for the public OR people actually believe the property is owned by the state. The second idea I openly reject.

SO who is the public – anyone in the world that wishes to use to use it so that we can have open borders ? Or is it the property of the the public in the U.S. that has paid for the maintenance and creation/enhancement of these properties ( along with guests in the country) ?

The latter concept makes public property in the U.S. “private” for the public in the citizens the U.S. – and trespassing for those simply who decided to cross the border. This brings back the initial claim that people who trespass enhance our security as Chapman claims

Chapman and his garbage socialism – along with some other key people at Reason – had better re-examine their ideas that they probably never closely considered to begin with. I certainly do not consider them libertarian.

I said that in my opening comment that public property is owned bey the public of that country. Pinning it down to specific people other than that is not possible under a coercive monopoly like the state

The state is a voluntary association, no different than a garden club. It “takes” what the members have agreed to. If you don’t like the dues and rules of the club, your individual liberty leaves two options.

1) Shut the fuck up.

2) Stop your “entitlement SUCKING” on the prospertiies and freedoms created and maintained by people you SNARL had no right to create the society you FREELOAD off.

Well, that’s according to merely Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand, you meaningless slaver.

“There are 300 kids and 400 women. Babies with bibs and milk bottles, not armaments. How much of a threat can they be?”

These single mothers will require tens of thousands of dollars a year each in government services and contribute next to nothing; the money for that is extracted, if necessary at gunpoint, from US tax payers.

And their traumatized kids growing up without a father will end up in gangs, doing drugs, and largely become welfare dependent themselves for life.

Don’t even bother linking to the fraudulent C. I. S. They’re known for being the S. P. L. C. of the right-wing xenophobes as they play fast and loose with statistics by conflating populations.

Really? Can you detail your objections to the study beyond “Conflating populations”?

I can give you the details of my objections. Every one of the studies that show Criminal Aliens as less likely to commit crimes compare them only to similar populations in the United States- either by race/ethnicity/or socio-economic group.

Those studies themselves (and I will bet the referenced one her does, too) show that the criminal aliens have a higher rate of criminality than the rate in the existing U.S. population.

You can easily verify that what I said is true. Look up how much it costs to raise a single child. Look up the average earnings of unskilled single moms with no English skills. Do the math.

Your xenophobia

Why would I be xenophobic? I have no problem with Mexicans or Mexico, I have no problem with legal, law abiding, tax paying immigrants from Mexico. As a legal immigrant who spent decades getting naturalized, I have a problem with people illegally present in the US no matter where they are from.

attempts at removing humanity out of those immigrants notwithstanding

I’m not “removing their humanity”. They can be human anywhere they can be legally present. I’m objecting to them coming to the US illegally.

immigrants

We are talking about illegal migrants or refugees here; neither of those groups are immigrants.

contribute much more to the economy than the native-born of the same socio-economic level

The native-born population at their level is the beneficiary of massive government redistribution, a huge social problem we need to address. It is insane to add to that problem by increasing the size of that population.

Old Mexican, let’s face it: you are a bigot, a racist, and a xenophobe; heck you even wear it as a matter of pride in your nickname.

I’m assuming here that you are a naturalized US citizen or someone with Mexican ancestry who is referring to his race and origins. For an American to behave that way makes you a bigot and a racist. I think it’s deplorable.

The other two possibilities are that you are actually an “Old Mexican”, that you are in the US present illegally or that you reside in Mexico and just try to influence US politics in your favor. In those cases, your opinion on US immigration policy is merely self-serving and irrelevant.

Yeah Mexican, single motherhood and kids growing up without fathers is a real problem in this society. And that is true regardless of the race of the mother and child. Sorry but your racist notion that Hispanics are just better than Americans white and black and thus things like single motherhood don’t matter when it is Hispanics, is like all racist notions bullshit. Take your La Raza race theories elsewhere.

Your xenophobia, Mark22, is made manifest you state with certainty that these migrants WILL (not “might”, but WILL) become welfare deadbeats, and that their kids WILL (not “might”, but WILL) turn into gangbangers and drug addicts. You assume the worst possible scenario about this group of people because of who they are and where they come from. You drop the pretense of making some sort of statistical argument and are just stating generalizations as fact. When you stop pointing your finger at large groups of people, composed of unique individuals, and saying “THEY’RE BAD PEOPLE”, then maybe we can have a productive discussion.

Your xenophobia, Mark22, is made manifest you state with certainty that these migrants WILL (not “might”, but WILL) become welfare deadbeats, and that their kids WILL (not “might”, but WILL) turn into gangbangers and drug addicts. You assume the worst possible scenario about this group of people because of who they are and where they come from.

No, I make a statistical statement about a group. That group is single mothers and fatherless kids. Such demographics perform very poorly. Nowhere did I say “because of where they are from”. Nor is that a “worst possible scenario”, it’s a statistical fact. That fact translates into massive drains on the US welfare system.

When you stop pointing your finger at large groups of people, composed of unique individuals, and saying “THEY’RE BAD PEOPLE”

I didn’t say “they’re bad people”; I really don’t care whether they are good people or bad people, what I care about is that they will, on average, impose massive costs on the US government.

And I agree that immigration should be discussed on an individual basis, but it is Chapman who collectivized these people, not me.

I’m not a foaming at the mouth anti-immigration type, and I don’t like SOME of what Trump’s ICE is doing. And I agree that the stuff Trump and Sessions are saying is dumb and inflammatory, as pretty much all political rhetoric is these days.

But that said, this article uses classic “confuse correlation and causation” logic. I mean, during the spike in illegal immigration in the ’90s the planet got warmer, so I suppose we should conclude that illegals cause global warming or climate change or whatever they’re calling it now. Right?

Did you know that our brain’s reward system fires one off for aggressive behavior toward a perceived outgroup? It feels good. Really, it’s amazing the things we’ve been discovering about the brain in the last decade.

In 1990, there were about 3.5 million undocumented foreigners in this country, and the national murder rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people. When the undocumented population peaked at 12.2 million in 2007, the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000?a decline of 40 percent?and it has fallen more since then

Yes, and it would be even lower without illegal immigrants. The difference between US and European murder rates is largely due to murders committed by blacks and Hispanics, and new Hispanic immigrants assimilate into the same culture of violence that produces high native Hispanic murder rates.

Policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute examined the evidence on crime from Texas. He found that unauthorized foreigners were about half as likely as native-born Americans to be convicted of a crime and one-quarter less likely to be convicted of murder. Their overall arrest rate was 40 percent below that of people born in this country.

That is after removing immigration violations from the mix and “correcting” for demographics, and after failing to correct for the fact that we are dealing with a population that is necessarily excellent at avoiding detection by authorities. In different words, Nowrasteh’s analysis isn’t just wrong, it is deceptive and fraudulent.

“Far from generating crime, this group appears to suppress it. A groundbreaking new state-by-state study covering 1990 to 2014 by sociologists Michael Light of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ty Miller of Purdue in the journal Criminology concludes that “undocumented immigration over this period is generally associated with decreasing violence.”

In another study, Light, Miller, and Brian Kelly (also of Purdue) found that “increased undocumented immigration was significantly associated with reductions in drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests.”

This data is surely being misrepresented.

If adding more people made less violence, fewer drug arrests, and fewer DUI arrests in absolute terms, then the added people would be perpetrating negative violence, negative drug arrests, and be arrested for DUI a negative number of times.

It is physically impossible to be arrested a negative number of times. Illegal aliens aren’t going around un-murdering people.

It may be that illegal aliens perpetrate these things at a lower positive rate than native born Americans of the same economic level (which is what’s actually happening), but it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that adding more of something in absolute terms creates less of it–when it’s only bringing down the average.

Well said,Ken. We are supposed to believe, I guess, that the influx of immigrants who commit crimes is driving our domestic criminals out of business. Not only are they taking our jerbs, they are taking our crimes!

Yet every illegal who commits violence is one person that the USA could actually prevent from committing violence in the America. If they were not here because they are non-Americans, they would have never committed the crime in the USA.

Quotes: Using newly released detailed data on the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens. … Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.

It’s not just their magic crime fighting abilities. They pick magic apples in the fields which are more expensive than regular apples and totally offset the cost of all the taxpayer funded bennies they receive and the numerous trips to emergency rooms for head colds! It’s magic all the way down!!!

Reason pimpled these studies a few days ago. And they don’t mean what reason is claiming. The studies look at crime in arbitrarily defined areas where illegal immigrants settle. Illegals don’t settle in good areas. And Illegals, being one arrest away from deportation, keep their heads down. That does not mean that illegals are safer than the general population. It means they are less criminal than the lowest ends of the population who live in the areas they settle. It also doesn’t mean that giving them legal status won’t change things. If they are no longer in danger of deportation, they are likely to be less worried about being arrested and will commit more crimes. Deterrence matters. But Reason doesn’t understand that because it has bought into what amounts to a form of racial supremacy theory that says Hispanics are naturally superior and less to white and especially black Americans.

Minarchism is a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for the state to exist solely to provide a very small number of services. A popular model of the state proposed by minarchists is known as the night-watchman state, in which the only governmental functions are to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud as defined by property laws, limiting it to three institutions: the military, the police and courts. The word “minarchist” was coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in 1980.[1] It differs from anarchism in that it is not completely based on voluntary association. “Minarchy” is a contraction of “minimum” and -archy. Arche (/???rki/; Ancient Greek: ????) is a Greek word which came to mean “first place, power”, “method of government”, “empire, realm”, “authorities” (in plural: ?????), “command”.[2]

If you want limited government then you are not an “archist” of any type. . . . Arche (/???rki/; Ancient Greek: ????) is a Greek word which came to mean “first place, power”, “method of government”, “empire, realm”, “authorities” (in plural: ?????), “command”

An “archist” who recognizes the Greek word that means “method of government” wants no government.

Doesn’t matter. You are an authority worshiping statist who pretends to be a libertarian. You refuse to comprehend concepts when they are spelled out to you. I don’t know if you have a fat head or a thick skull. The result is the same.

TL;DR, & besides it’s Chapman, but is the thesis that it’s the illegal status of hese people thqat makes them safer? If that’s so, why not just declare everybody an outlaw, & then we’ll all be so careful not to step out of line that we’ll all be the safer?

I’m not sure why the arguments on this site always revolve around the freedoms of undocumented immigrants while I have to kiss the government ring to go anywhere or do anything. A lot of citizens are sick of the double standards everywhere and this is really one of the most obvious ones.

A consistent argument would be that no one should need papers to leave or arrive, everyone in the world is entitled to the USA’s entitlements as long as they can make their way across our border, and foreign citizens should be able to both vote and buy influence in our elections.

If someone who wasn’t supposed to be here commits ONE act of violence it’s already a tragedy for that family and that person. To say that the ARREST RATE among illegals is 40% below natives is totally irrelevant. Arrest doesn’t even equal guilt. Along with his loose correlations about crime in the USA falling in general his argument is weakly pathetic.

Hush. Borders are not borders because butterflies can fly over them, Old Beaner said so. Strive, will you, to Make America As Great As Fucking Mexico. This caravan came because they are in fear for their lives damn you to hell! Why the fuck they didn’t squat 20 miles north of the south Mexican border is a mystery to me to is no business of yours you slaver, statist, marxian, Trumpista. The only reason you exist is to shit on brownies.

I’m not sure why the arguments on this site always revolve around the freedoms of undocumented immigrants while I have to kiss the government ring to go anywhere or do anything. A lot of citizens are sick of the double standards everywhere and this is really one of the most obvious ones.

Your post is just like the Uber article yesterday. Uber vehicles (unregulated) and cabs (regulated) are being treated much differently. Why does the solution have to be to make Uber regulated? Why can’t we make cabs unregulated instead?

Likewise, why do we have to curtail immigrants’ freedoms to even things out? Why can’t we advocate for non-immigrants to gain more freedom instead?

Mr. Chapman, you completely miss the point. Other than the U.S. name one developed country that knowingly allows illegals to stay ? We have laws that are not being enforced and by definition that is anarchy.

Regardless, the “laws are on the books” argument is circular. Libertarians (including the party platform) are advocating for the law to be changed. So you can’t hang your hat on the laws are already there. It would be like if you said “I’m against gun control laws” and I responded with “Gun control laws should be enforced.” It’s not a rebuttal, it’s a non sequitur.

What, still no explanation for why illegal immigrants are more resistant to crime than citizens?

Not that Trump and the wall builders are telling the truth either, mind you, but the idea that illegal aliens are somehow magically better men and women than citizens is a ludicrous claim and it’s amazing to me that people swallow it uncritically.

Do Reason authors also believe that certain genealogies of humanity are magical in other ways too? Perhaps Asians are immune to thoughts of dissent?

The headline’s statement is nonsense after comparing the crime ratios of America’s dwindling PRIMARY ethnic group, Caucasions, to Latinos. — Crime ratios are lowest for Asians, followed by Caucasians, third are Latinos, and forth are African Americans. Mathematically & logically speaking, this means MORE of the significantly higher (300%) crime ratios of Latinos, versus the comparability very LOW crime rate of America’s largest ethic group, are INCREASING the overall crime rate for ALL of America. — New York displays them well, with – THIS crime report (link). Over 40% of NY City is Caucasian, one would believe there would be more Caucasian crimes. However, that is NOT the case, at all. In fact, people of Latin origin are over 350% MORE likely to commit a crime than Asians & 300% more likely than the current majority, Caucasians. —- Even the FBI, who combines Latino AND Caucasians into the same misleading “White” category (link)., when reporting crimes… it is EASY to see WHO has the FBI’s focus (link).

False statement, “they can go into the business of making horror movies?which, like these claims, are not rooted in reality.”

Perhaps its just the area that I live in but there is no denying that about 90% of criminal theft and break-ins in my region are committed by illegal immigrants and/or even including temporary work visa carriers.

So, maybe in some parts its not “rooted in reality”, I’ll grant the author that since I DON’T KNOW – but it certainly is a HORROR MOVIE in other parts.

see the LAPD most wanted list. Or HHS OIG most wanted. Quite obviously not mostly 5th generation Americans. Also, see studies that show children of one immigrant group commit crimes at twice the rate of the general population. See “The Second Generation in Early Adulthood: New Findings from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study”

Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through higher housing (land) costs, greater competition for jobs, lower wages, higher taxes to pay for greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, tax fraud, other crime, higher taxes to pay for indigent healthcare (hospital closings), higher taxes for cost of public schools, price of college, degradation of the military, depletion of resources, burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the INCREASE of and change in the nature (more poor, more criminals, e pluribus multum) of the POPULATION since 1965, driven almost entirely by late 20th century entry of migrants (immigrants, illegals, h1b visa holders, visa overstays, refugees, etc) their families and descendants.

This is the most anti-free market, anti-free association post I’ve read on Reason in weeks. You have a laundry list of justifications for economic and social intervention by a third party (government), which is the very basis for authoritarianism.

Another meeting of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Policies has convened.

These faux libertarians conduct so many meetings it’s difficult to understand how they find time for voter suppression, drug warring, gay-bashing, harassment of abortion clinics, racial profiling, etc.

We need illegals to make us good people. The more illegals we have, the less crime we have. Explaining why Mexico and Honduras are known for being free of crime. Also makes it odd that they would leave to come to a criminal hellhole like the US.

Illegal immigrants come from more places than just Mexico and Honduras. Also, the type of person who is likely to leave those places to come to the United States, even illegally, is typically less likely to be a criminal than the type of person who is content to stay (or too poor to leave).

Also makes it odd that they would leave to come to a criminal hellhole like the US.

I could ask you the same question. Why do you willingly choose to stay in the United States when the violent crime rate in Canada is so much lower?

Azathoth is full of shit … AGAIN. He ALWAYS invents bat-shit crazy lies.

I worked in a Canadian division for three years. Becoming a legal; resident is EASY. I did it AFTER I was settled. I COULD EVEN VOTE. Like most countries, ALL taxpayers vote on DIRECT taxes (property and city income taxes there.)

First, that crime declined overall even as illegal immigration increased DOES NOT mean they contributed to this decline. It could be true (and as noted below probably is) that illegal immigrants are very violent, but that their crime simply didn’t make the overall stats budge, given that they are

Second, it references a Cato article by Alex Nowrateh on Texas. Hmmm. Why the one state ? Why Texas ? I’ll tell you why.

Alex ran a debunking of an article by Peter Kirsanow at NR. It was re-printed here at Reason. In it, Alex says Kirsanow did his math wrong, conflating “incarcerations” with “incarcerated”. Alex proceeded to say that Kirsanow overstated illegal immigrant crime because he subtracted legal incarcerated from total incarcerations (which include multiple arrests) thereby inflating the number of illegal incarcerations. BUT HE DID NOT. Instead, he subtracted illegal incarcerations. This means that, although Kirsanow indeed did his math wrong, it was wrong in that it put illegal immigrant crime in the BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. In fact, illegal immigrant is likely even worse than Kirsanow wrote.

Second, it references a Cato article by Alex Nowrateh on Texas. Hmmm. Why the one state ? Why Texas ? I’ll tell you why.

Alex ran a debunking of an article by Peter Kirsanow at NR. It was re-printed here at Reason. In it, Alex says Kirsanow did his math wrong, conflating “incarcerations” with “incarcerated”. Alex proceeded to say that Kirsanow overstated illegal immigrant crime because he subtracted legal incarcerated from total incarcerations (which include multiple arrests) thereby inflating the number of illegal incarcerations. BUT HE DID NOT. Instead, he subtracted illegal incarcerations. This means that, although Kirsanow indeed did his math wrong, it was wrong in that it put illegal immigrant crime in the BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. In fact, illegal immigrant is likely even worse than Kirsanow wrote.

And Texas ? Of the 5 stats Kirsanow examined, 2 (TX and FL) had lower illegal immigrant homicide rates than natives, the other three were higher. Overall for all 5 stats, illegal immigrants had a homicide rate 34% higher than natives. And it quite likely is much higher than that. So, Alex seems to be cherry picking.

Three, while we’re on the topic of cherry picking, where are the studies by John Lott regarding illegal immigrant homicide ?

This isn’t the Reason magazine I remember. Its a group that surrenders facts to drive an agenda. Shame.

Three, while we’re on the topic of cherry picking, where are the studies by John Lott regarding illegal immigrant homicide ?

It’s funny, I googled “John Lott studies immigration” after reading your post and the first study that came up was entitled “Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona”. You argue that the Texas study was cherry picking. Arizona is apparently immune.

Could you explain what you mean by “best possible light”. I didn’t follow.

I argue that picking one state and ignoring others with different outcomes is cherry picking. I offer up the Lott study that has different outcomes. I note the Kirsanow article had states with higher AND LOWER immigrant crime rates than natives. I am for looking at all the available data. You, however, seem to be going out of your way to be a dick.

On the best possible light, I read the Kirsanow article and Alex’s critique of it. Alex says Kirsenow subtracted legal crime from the total, when Kirsenow’s state-by-state analysis actually subtracted illegal crime from the total. Therefore, the issue of repeat incarcerations means Kirsanow’s stats are the most favorable treatment for illegals, and the true stats (if we knew them) would be far worse.

Here is the original Reason article. See my comments which are near the bottom.https:// reason.com/archives/ 2018/02/01/ immigrants-and-crime #comment

I am not a crime scholar, and so if there is an alternate explanation or clarification, I’m all ears.

What it looks like to me so far, however, is that Reason isn’t interested in looking at inconvenient data.

I’m being a dick by asking you to clarify what you meant? Sheesh. Don’t be such an angry republican.

From what I read from Kirsenow, his main critique was mostly about the fact that the immigration status was estimated (it wasn’t directly available in the data set), and that the math being wrong was the cherry on top. We may be reading different articles though.

Also, just to be clear — let’s not call Lott’s paper a citable work. Best I can tell, it did not undergo peer review. This is probably why it contained a mathematical error applied to one of the key variables of note. As a frequent reviewer of scientific journals, I can tell you that the paper I read probably would not have been accepted in a real journal. One of the primary flaws is that he uses a surrogate variable to describe his classifications (and his denominator!) but never offers evidence to support the veracity of that technique. Maybe his hypothesis is absolutely correct — but his techniques were not sufficient to convincingly make that case.

I’d say you all but accused me of hypocrisy, implying that I cherry picked even as I criticized cherry picking. Thats being a dick. Now you assume I am a Republican. You seem to want to project a lot on people instead of reading what they actually have to say. Thats also a dick move.

I think we are reading different papers.

I’d love to see a debate on illegal immigrant crime (SoHo forum ?) as this area seems to have crappy data, with people mixing and matching disparate datasets, and unresolved disputes about it.

My issue, when I see weak tea like Reason has published above (you haven’t commented on the # of illegal immigrants vs the overall crime rate argument) is that it smells of pushing an agenda.

I apologize for accusing you of being a republican. I made that assumption based on the fact that you seem to be taking the republican stance on this particular issue. It sounds like my assumption was wrong.

Anyway, Reason pushes a libertarian agenda in most of the articles they publish. Most articles are editorials, really. I wouldn’t call them a news source, and so equal time or objective reporting isn’t really their job. However, it’s fair to accuse them of failing to accurately capture the opposition’s argument, but I don’t think they’ve done that here. Choosing to not include every study ever isn’t damning, especially when the study in question is seriously flawed.

They do push an agenda NOW. I remember when they used to be a lot more rigorous about getting it right and, you know, facts. The recent podcast with Nick and Virginia Postrel indicates at least a goal of digging in to an issue deeply. Way back when, anyway.

I think in past, there was confidence that the deeper one dug, the more a libertarian answer/explanation/solution would emerge. You mention equal time reporting…but really its about confronting facts and opposing arguments. Reason doesn’t seem interested in that in any deep way.

On Lott’s article, I can’t judge your critique, but if they are going to leave out weak or bad science, then perhaps they ought to leave out their own unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and rather lame assertions that since our overall crime rate dropped even as we have more illegals, that illegals necessarily contribute to lower crime. Having a double standard IS damning.

I remember when they used to be a lot more rigorous about getting it right and, you know, facts.

They didn’t present facts here? Yes, I will agree that their titles are sensationalist. I will also say that this article is written with too long of a lead up, but the main point was to reference a (peer reviewed) study which analyzed crime rates among both groups. It wasn’t their own unsubstantiated assertions — it was analysis of data. That’s quite literally a case of presenting facts to bolster an argument.

I haven’t read the study that they cite, and it sounds like it’s correlative more than anything else, so I do have some concerns that they may have been drawing too much from it. But this doesn’t strike me as a propaganda piece.

Yes, the title is sensational…and its quite representative of assertions in the article body. Its quite a leap to jump from illegal immigrants committing less crime than natives (if this is true) to claiming they make us safer.

As I pointed out, the cite the Cato article on Texes, which even in Kirsanow’s take had lower homicide rates for illegals. So again, how do I know if this one state means anything ?

It has the strong odor of propaganda to me. As I noted above, this topic is worthy of a healthy live debate.

Supporters of mass incarceration argue that America locks up more of its own citizenry than any other country in the world because Americans are more violent. If that’s the case, then it should be obvious that immigrants from other countries make the United States safer. Proponents of mass incarceration would have you believe that Americans are evil and need to be caged en masse. Yet those very same people claim that people from other countries bring violence to America. It’s impossible to reconcile those two views.

Of course, I don’t actually agree with proponents of mass incarceration on this point. The real reason we lock up so many people is because the US government is a human rights abuser. The American people aren’t evil or inherently more violent (at least not to the extent that would explain the disparity in incarceration). Rather, Americans are stuck suffering under the yoke of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet.

I don’t see “supporters of mass incarceration” so much as proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing and a general law and order crowd.

We have a high incarceration rate because we have mandatory minimum sentencing/long prison sentences and a black population that as a group is extremely violent/criminal. For sure, mandatory sentencing has gone off the rails (especially for drug crime) and needs to be fixed. Crime in the black population has a lot of explanations…my view being the War on Poverty etc did black families no favors. I am sure others will scream racism (some truth to that), but whatever the explanation, it is what it is. In the end, they are committing crimes and going to jail for them.

Thats a far cry from being a “human rights abuser”. Thats ridiculous hyperbole.

So with your “black population” comment, you count yourself among the group that considers Americans to be more violent/criminal than other populations. I don’t disagree with that (although I won’t use the word “criminal” here, because that’s circular). But I do disagree with the idea that the more violent nature of Americans accounts for the disparity in incarceration and the disparity in spending. Reason has done a good job of breaking down the source of high incarceration, and you’re right that mandatory minimums are a big reason. So is incentivization of prosecutors for getting guilty pleas, outrageous enforcement spending, and the war on inanimate objects (guns, drugs, etc).

If you’re wondering, and you probably aren’t, I think the main reason for the more violent trends in the black community are related to the very same trends we see in the poor community. The US is a wealthy country (especially if you use mean as your metric), but wealth disparity is huge. Also, there’s evidence that the effects of poverty are relative — consumerism and materialism and the ways they’re promoted not only help encourage the perception of poverty but also exacerbate it.

btw – I’m not advocating for progressive programs or shit like that. I’m just pointing out that income disparity has been proven to cause problems re: violence and theft. Fortunately, I think libertarianism has a solution for income disparity. Reason has talked about that a lot too.

Well it depends on who you mean by “other populations”. We clearly have a homicide rate that is worse than some and better than others. Its also true that black people drive up our homicide rate. So, our level of violence makes SOME difference in the incarceration rate.

I don’t disagree that the other things you’ve listed also contribute, though plenty of other countries have those issues too. Perhaps corrupt policing in other countries contributes to LOWER incarceration (you just pay a bribe).

I don’t agree that income disparity necessitates higher crime among the poor, or rather haven’t seen evidence of such. It doesn’t strike me as intuitively true, nor do I think libertarianism “cares” about income disparity per se, or sees it as a problem to solve. I am far more a believer in the decline in the black family unit as an explanation, which plenty has been written about.

So, our level of violence makes SOME difference in the incarceration rate.

Sure does. But not all of the difference. And not most of the difference either.

But you’re correct. It’s possible that these other countries have corrupt policing — or incompetent policing, or underfunded policing, etc. And so the incarceration numbers are low because the policing is “bad”. But when they’re still achieving lower murder and violent crime reporting rates (which are mostly independent of policing) with those so-called policing deficiencies, then I think it demonstrates that “bad” policing is perfectly fine. I would actually argue that “bad” policing is good policing. We should be striving for bad policing. Bad policing would also completely solve our deficit problem, but that’s another topic.

There’s a ton of data out there about income disparity and the impact on crime. You can google it or if you have trouble finding something, I can link you to some papers on this area. True, libertarianism doesn’t care about income disparity, or even about good economic outcomes. Libertarianism cares about one thing — the non-aggression principle. These other things, like income disparity and good economic outcomes, are the side benefits of libertarianism. And like it or not, those are the things that resonate with people. People for the most part don’t give two shits about the NAP.

“Rather, Americans are stuck suffering under the yoke of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet.”

That’s a bit of hyperbole. It might be the most oppressive government in the west, but certainly not on the planet. One has much more reason to fear the authorities in the US than they do say in Australia, Switzerland or Canada. But there is no comparison to China or North Korea.

“Rather, Americans are stuck suffering under the yoke of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet.”

That’s a bit of hyperbole. It might be the most oppressive government in the west, but certainly not on the planet. One has much more reason to fear the authorities in the US than they do say in Australia, Switzerland or Canada. But there is no comparison to China or North Korea.

Although this article is A Grade retard, I must admit that it is far less retarded than the typical Chapman article. He at least worked at his dishonesty this time.

I am curious about the “lower” criminality of illegals… the crime rates of their children skyrocket to typical Latino high crime. So, are the illegals less criminal, do they get caught less, or is there a third option here…? One thought that comes to mind is that criminals often victimize their own demographic more than others, and so if that holds true for illegals, they would be drastically less likely to report being a victim for fear of deportation. This would mean that their brutalizers do not even have anyone reporting their crimes let alone looking for them.

Since the illegals are so much better for the country it must be that these illegals are the victims of the legals It is not the fault of these illegals. All want is a chance to work and supply their families needs.

Very good questions. You’re not the first to ask them. Scientists have examined exactly the type of thing you’re thinking about, and showed that even if you account for lower reporting of crime (which you can do two ways — 1) factor in reporting rates; OR 2) use a proper control group), the illegals still exhibit lower crime rates. Also, when you consider crimes like murder that are generally immune to reporting, it also supports the view of lower rates. Good questions though.

Well these immigrants could be just as beneficial to the economy if they come into the country legally. So instead of stopping the enforcement of the law and work to change the immigration law so that could come legally. You know the law could be changed even to the extent that anyone that comes into the US and any they could get to the US would be legal. So stop causing disrespect for the law and make immigration easier.

So instead of stopping the enforcement of the law and work to change the immigration law so that could come legally.

We’re trying. Unfortunately, libertarians are the only political party interested in this, so it’s an uphill climb. But there was a time when we were the only party interested in legalizing marijuana, so hopefully one of the major parties comes around on this issue too.

I see the numbers but neither the author nor any of the enlightened commenters here offer any basis for correlation. Let me try. I have lived in areas where there were substantial numbers of illegal immigrants and substantial numbers of “safe houses”. Did the residents commit crimes? Yes, I know of several that were reported. Could the cops catch them? No, the “residents” were well skilled in moving around on a moment’s notice. If arrested, did they go to trial? Only if they were denied bail or if high bail were set. Otherwise it was, in the words of one of our leading criminal court justices, a “revolving door”.

No doubt there is a chunk of that population smart enough to know to “keep your head down”. But that hardly means that illegal immigrants are making America safer. That conclusion could be found in any issue of Mother Jones or Vox over the last several years.

When you encourage people to break one law, that teaches them breaking the law is okay in some circumstances, which leads to disregard for other laws.

The big question is whether you want America to be a law-abiding country, or one that encourages some of its people to be law-breakers aka outlaws. The solution to unjust laws is cancellation – replacement by a more just law.

But most Americans only support legal immigration, NOT illegal immigration…

breaking the law is okay in some circumstances, which leads to disregard for other laws.

Breaking the law IS ok in some circumstances. Hell, it’s ok in most circumstances. Doesn’t mean you won’t get caught, it just means that there’s no equivalence between the law and morality/ethics. Bastiat wrote extensively about that well over a hundred years ago. Libertarians have been citing him for decades.

“Studies” like this suffer from two large problems. Illegals don’t typically call themselves “illegal”. As a consequence, the number of illegals in the criminal justice system is massively underestimated. The GAO actually studied this issue. See GAO report GAO-11-187. Illegals are around 3% of the U.S. population, but around 10% of the prisoners. So much for the “fake news” about low-crime illegals.

However, the real problem is worse. Crime rates rise astoundingly from the first generation (born abroad) to the second generation (born here). The second generation has neither the skills for “good” jobs nor the willingness to do “bad” jobs for low wages (competing with the next wave of illegals of course). Inevitably, very high crime rates are a consequence. Don’t believe me? Check the Migration Policy Institute (a pro-illegal lobby) for the numbers. For example, MPI claims that crime rates go up by a factor of 7 for the children of Mexican immigrants.

Unless Reason has some secret plan to prevent immigrants from having children, the U.S. is importing crime on a massive scale. That’s bad. However, we are also importing societal failure which is even worse.

Look at crime stats by Hispanics in general. They’re disproportionately represented for murders, assaults etc. If the numbers aren’t total BS in the first place, the only reason they’re lower than “native born” is because that number includes blacks! Blacks commit murders at 4 times their percentage of the population.

So yeah, hispanics are less bad than ghetto blacks, but that isn’t exactly the bar most have in their minds. If a ton of Hispanics move into a whiteish or Asian area, crime goes up. Period. I know, this happened to my home town in Cali. It’s a shithole now.

The president and his attorney general ignore the real dangers posed by most undocumented foreigners: They will fill jobs that Americans don’t want, learn English, pay taxes, and stay out of trouble. Chilling, huh?

If Chapman was an actual libertarian instead of just a whore for corporate interests posing as a libertarian, he might notice that the danger of illegal immigrants is that they will turn the US into another corrupt Latin-American style banana republic, like Mexico or Venezuela. There are plenty of signs that we’re already heading rapidly in that direction.

We don’t know the full details of crime by illegals, because the government (which is so obsessed with gathering statistics on every other topic) is trying hard not to know. But it’s certain that crime in America would be lower than it currently is if there were no illegals in the country.

… unauthorized foreigners were about half as likely as native-born Americans to be convicted of a crime..

When you consider the fact that one hundred percent of those “unauthorized foreigners” are breaking the law, this little stat says a lot more about our reluctance to prosecute illegal immigrants than it does about their scrupulous adherence to our laws.

This excuse for an argument reminds me of the way the Left will insist that there is no election fraud …because virtually nobody ever gets caught and prosecuted for it.

Workers accused of concocting the biggest voter-registration-fraud scheme in state history said they were under pressure from the community-organizing group that hired them to sign up more voters …

… Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County.

King County is Seattle’s. Pierce is Tacoma’s.

What does NOT exist the the type of VOTING fraud invented by our Bullshitter-In-Chief. The authoritarian right LOVES to confuse voter registration fraud with fraudulent votes — especially when a President is elected despite nearly 10 million votes AGAINST him … and won the Electoral College by a teeny-tiny 29,000 voters in three states COMBINED … after million of dollars., and tens of millions of Facebook frauds, plus Wikileaks, ALL by the Russians, who Trump sold his soul to. Plus Comey. 29,000 voters.

According to the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf), as of 2011 we had around 351,000 criminal aliens that had been convicted and sentenced to prison. Though it’s hard to get accurate numbers (seems the government doesn’t want us to know how many illegals are in our jails and prisons) here’s no reason to think those numbers have dramatically changed in the last few years.

If we have 2 million people locked up (federal & state prisons and local jails had about that many in 2011) and you subtract from that number 351,000, the number of native-born & legals in lock ups is around 1,650,000.

If you subtract the frequently cited number of 11.7M illegal from the American population of around 330M, you get 318M ‘legals.’ Then, to compare apples to apples, divide the number of criminals by the size of their own group:

Legal criminals by the legal population: 1,650,000/318M = .005 or 5/1000 or 1 out of 200 Americans is behind bars.

Illegal criminals by the illegal population: 351,000/11.7M = .03 or 3/100 or 1 out of 33 illegal aliens is behind bars.

If you use the advocates’ numbers (again, 11.7M), illegal immigrants are .035 of the general population (11.7M / 330M = .035 or 3.5%). But they constitute 17.5% of the incarcerated population (351,000 / 2,000,000 = .1755). Isn’t that wildly out of proportion? They’re overrepresented by a factor of 5.

Btw, The GAO’s estimate of 351,000 incarcerated aliens excludes: 1. All legal immigrants in state or local prisons; 2. Convicted illegal aliens for whom the states did not submit reimbursement ??requests to the federal government; 3. Prisoners whose country of birth could not be determined; 4. Immigrants who have been naturalized; 5. Children born to illegal aliens on? U.S soil 6. Immigrants without at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions; 7. Immigration detainees; 8. Illegal immigrants who committed crimes after being amnestied by Reagan in 1986.

So, if anything, it’s probably a low-side estimate.

Where does this claim that they commit crime at a lower rate than native-born Americans come from? Do people compare apples to oranges by dividing the number of illegal criminals (351,000) by the total population (330M)? That would give you .001 or 1 out of 1,000. That’s the only way I can see the “illegals commit crime at a lower rate than native-born Americans” argument being made based on the statistics. But it’s a flawed and unfair comparison, isn’t it?

Family values begin at home. If you’re taking subteen children on a thousand mile journey with no destination assured, you’re doing them a disservice, and probably using them as a totem to bring you good luck. Very unadmirable.